Title : Wind energy, Humble Island Type : Antarctic EAM NSF Org: OD / OPP Date : January 24, 1992 File : opp93058 DIVISION OF POLAR PROGRAMS OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 202/357-7766 MEMORANDUM Date: January 24, 1992 From: Environmental Officer, DPP Subject: Environmental Action Memorandum (Facility for Wind Generation of Energy at Humble Island, Near Palmer Station, Antarctica) To: Manager, Polar Biology and Medicine Program, DPP Files (S.7 - Environment) This Environmental Action Memorandum describes the need for, and location of, proposed actions to establish a source of wind- generated energy to operate data logging and retrieval equipment for Project S-013 at Humble Island near Palmer Station, Antarc- tica, during the 1991-1992 austral summer season. The Environm- ental Officer posed a set of questions relating to the proposed project, and to the potentially affected environment. These questions were responded to by Messrs. Terry Johnson and A. J. Oxton of Antarctic Support Associates, Inc., and Dr. William Fraser (Principal Investigator for Project S-013) on January 14, 1992; the questions and responses are shown below: Environmental Assessment Queries and Responses LAND USE AND PLANNING 1. What is the specific purpose of the proposed activity? To provide a reliable, low maintenance, environmentally- compatible power source for data logging and data retrieval equipment at a remote site. Presently, when the equipment is in place, lead acid storage batteries must be rotated between Humble Island for use and Palmer Station for recharging, a trip made by Zodiac every three days. Trips are presently made daily in order to collect data and assure charge in the battery sufficient to carry the operation over a bad weather day; beyond that data loss is likely. The installation of a wind charger would alleviate the need for regular site visits. What alternatives have the Investigator, the Program and the contractor considered? The "no-action" alternative; the use of a gasoline or propane powered generator; and, the proposed alternative (wind generation of energy). 2. What is the specific location of the proposed activity? A promontory on Humble Island 100 feet from the penguin colony under study by S-013. What alternative locations have the Investigator, the Program and the contractor considered? None. Humble Island is study area of S-013. 3. How would any aesthetic impacts to the area from the propos- ed activity be handled by the Investigator, the Program or the Contractor? Installation of the proposed equipment would be seasonal, required only during data collection periods, about three weeks each year. Then it would be removed and stored at Palmer Station. 4. Would the proposed activity have any other indirect impacts on the environment? If yes, what are they; if no, explain why none are expected. No indirect impacts are anticipated. The proposed equipment is more environmentally-compatible and would preclude problems surrounding periodic transfer of lead acid batteries or gasoline. 5. Would the proposed activity change the traditional use(s) of the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. The proposed equipment would lessen, however, the need to visit the site. 6. Are the physical and environmental characteristics of the neighboring environment suitable for the proposed activity? If yes, explain why; if no, explain why. Yes. The site is sufficiently windy to allow efficient operation of the proposed equipment. IMPACT AND POLLUTION POTENTIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: 7. How has protection of the environment and human health from unnecessary pollution or impact been considered for the proposed activity (includes such considerations as pollution abatement or mitigation, and waste management [e.g., of noise, dust, fuel loss, disposition of one-time-use materials, construction wastes])? Yes. Any wastes associated with placement of the proposed equipment would be removed by the civilian contractor; and, the equipment is not an immediate source of potential environmental contaminants. 8. Would the proposed activity change ambient air quality at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. The equipment is not an immediate source of potential environmental contaminants. 9. Would the proposed activity change water quality or flow (drainage), at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. The equipment is not an immediate source of potential environmental contaminants and its installation, operation and maintenance is not expected to effect changes in water flow at the site. 10. Would the proposed activity change waste generation or management at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. Yes. It would eliminate the need to constantly visit the site, thus saving energy (fuel) and minimizing the risk of breaking a lead acid battery. 11. Would the proposed activity change energy production or demand, personnel and life support, or transportation requirements at the site? If yes, how; if no, why. Yes. Transportation of energy in the form of charged batteries (and waste in the form of batteries returned for charging) would be eliminated but for the travel needed for seasonal setup and takedown. Daily Zodiac trips to the study site would not be required to support the energy needs of the data collection equipment. 12. Is the proposed activity expected to adversely affect scientific studies or locations of research interest (near and distant, in the short-term and in the long-term)? If yes, how; if no, why. No. The installation of this windmill equipment is expected to enhance the research productivity as it would permit more time for study and data reduction and a greater degree of reliability of data acquisition. 13. Would the proposed activity generate pollutants that might affect terrestrial, marine or freshwater ecosystems within the environs of the station or inland camp? If yes, how; if no, why. No. Such technologies as generation of energy by wind are essentially pollutant-free. The equipment would require relatively small amounts of lubricants; and, periodic inspection and maintenance of the equipment should assure that such potential pollutants are not liberated to the environment 14. Does the site of the proposed activity serve as habitat for any significant assemblages of Antarctic wildlife (for example, mosses or lichens, or antarctic birds or marine mammals)? Yes. Humble Island is a penguin breeding area and there is some plant life on the island. HUMAN VALUES 15. Would he proposed activity encroach upon any historical property of the site? If yes, how; if no, why. No, the site has no historic designation. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 16. What other environmental considerations may be potentially affected by the proposed activity at the proposed (or chosen) site? For example, have impacts associated with decommissioning of the activity been considered (and how). None. The proposed equipment would be removed each season following collection of data. Finding The Environmental Officer, after reviewing the information presented above, believes that the proposed activity poses neither potentially minor nor transitory impacts to the antarctic environment. There are foreseeable environmental benefits associated with the proposed action. The contractor is authorized to proceed with the proposed activity. Sidney Draggan cc: Dr. William Fraser (S-013)